Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>
>> On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> In #2 of his proposed solution, Geir said he doesn't believe that
>>>> Derby qualifies as an implementation, and thus would not be affected
>>>> by the JSPA.
>>>>
>>> I thought Geir's proposed solution was predicated on item 1)
>>>
>>> Geir wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) Have Sun change the draft spec license for 221 from the current to
>>>> the new one that allows distribution with appropriate warning markings.
>>>> I'm going to start working this line w/ the PMO and the JCP.
>>>>
>>> Until the licence is changed we cannot ship a GA version of Derby with
>>> JDBC 4.0 code.
>>>
>> Then I'm confused, if we're not an implementation, thus not subject to
>> section 5 of the terms in the JSPA, and the copyright concerns w/r/t
>> the evaluation license are not an issue for us, then why does the spec
>> draft license need to change? Can somebody spell that out for me?
>>
>
> Derby isn't an implementation, but there is a small piece that
> implements the JDBC4 spec.
>
>
>> It certainly seems like changing the spec license is the right thing
>> to do to make everybody happy. So, can someone from Sun or JCP please
>> confirm that the draft spec license will in fact be changed?
>>
>
> I've made the request formally. As I said in a follow-up, the solution
> that will be easier will be a permissive license for the upcoming
> proposed final draft.
>
Geir and I have spoken and i have also discussed it internally and we
are going to look at updating the license for the PFD
>> I guess that, yes, we still cannot ship a GA version of Derby with the
>> JDBC 4 until another draft of the spec is posted with the new license
>> attached.
>>
>> andrew
>>
>>
>>